Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft: BOLT7: The `route_price_update` Message #616

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@jtimon
Copy link
Contributor

commented May 27, 2019

DISCLAIMER: This is not a firm proposal yet, only a draft to hopefully receive some feedback. If this is not the right place for such a thing I can close it and open it as a PR to my own repo instead until it is more mature to actually be considered to be merged.

A few weeks ago I was discussing on IRC with alexbosworth and others about being able as a hop to charge specific fees for routing through different channel pair combinations.

My main use case was to be able to allow routing through channels with different chain_hash, so it's not really a fee, but a price, a multiplier.
For example, if you want to route a BTC channel to an AAA channel and give 10 AAA for every BTC, you would set the "route price" (suggestions for better names welcomed) to 10.

But it can be also used to charge specific additional fees for channel combinations.
For example, let's say you have 2 BTC channels c1 and c2 and you want to charge an additional 1% fee through them, in addition to any per channel fees. You would set the price for the pair to 0.99.

I'm talking in float numbers here to simplify, but in the draft I avoided them. Not sure if in a nice way or a stupid one.

As said, feedback welcomed.
Please, be kind to me, but not to the draft or the proposal.

@renepickhardt
Copy link
Contributor

left a comment

I don't get this proposal. Why are the current routing fees not sufficient? In particular if we have the multichannel case we might need an exchange rate anyway (which could include the fees for the exchange and which should not be propagated over gossip anyway as exchange rates are probably needed in real time)

@jtimon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 8, 2019

I don't get this proposal. Why are the current routing fees not sufficient?

How do you satisfy my examples with the current routing fees?
From what I was told on IRC, it is not possible, and after reading the specification, I don't see how one could do it with the current specification either.

(which could include the fees for the exchange and which should not be propagated over gossip anyway as exchange rates are probably needed in real time)

Well, I was assuming this "route_price_update" could be updated relatively often but not more often than that. I guess if people want more regular updates they can receive them from the connecting node in some other protocol other than the gossip one. Note the hop can always reject to route a payment when if the offered rate is not to his liking anymore, even if it had announce that rate would be fine before.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.